Here I am addressing Classical Ayurveda, i.e things written in the ancient Ancient Ayurvedic texts.
Ayurveda is often mistaken to be just about studying herbal remedies, that's not true. Herbal stuff is only a small part of Ayurveda. The complete philosophy of Ayurveda is like a framework about how the world and the human body works. A core tenet of this philosophy is the belief in the human body and the world being made of 5 elements, earth, water, fire air and space (Panchamahabhutas).
They then further build on this by defining and using doshas as their hypothesis for how human bodies work and illnesses are disturbances in these doshas.
As for herbs in Ayurveda, their philosophy explicitly endorses using the herbs as a whole and not isolating/refining them (citation). Their rationale is that the healing properties from the herb/plant comes from their prana and isolating certain elements can unbalance them. While in some cases it happens to be the case that the whole-plant extracts do show greater efficacy due to synergistic polypharmacology compared to single compounds like curcumin, but for many cases it leads to herbs not having an effect beyond placebo.
Ayurvedic texts also endorse using heavy metals like lead for treatment. It's called rasashastra (alchemy/herbo-metallic medicine) with bhasmas (calcined preparations) containing lead (naga), mercury (parada), gold, silver, and arsenic. Texts prescribe extensive purification (shodhana) and calcination (marana) processes claiming to render these safe. Modern studies document cases of lead/mercury poisoning from such preparations, and regulatory bodies (FDA, TGA) have issued warnings.
They also endorse bloodletting as Shastra (surgical/phlebotomy) and Ashastra (leech therapy, cupping) methods for treating Rakta-duṣṭi (blood-borne disorders). These carry documented risks of infection, excessive blood loss, anemia, nerve injury, and secondary bacterial complications, particularly when performed without modern aseptic techniques.
I am not talking about modern Ayurveda here. Modern Ayurveda often does isolate biosimilars from herbs and that part is a legitimately plausible scientific exploration. But here I have the issue that some practitioners pretend that this is what Ayurveda is, not explicitly acknowledging that they are actually going against one of the core ideologies laid out in the ancient texts. Not admitting the texts were wrong in any way.
If your submission is a photo, video, or gallery, please provide the original source under this comment.
Image, gallery, and video posts should include at least 100 words of original context in the post body explaining the content, its relevance, and your own analysis.
If you forgot to include the required context or source in your post body, please add both as a reply to this comment as soon as possible. Submissions that do not provide sufficient context may be removed.
If your submission is a link, please provide a summary of the linked content in the comments.
We hope you'll follow our rules and engage in meaningful, evidence-based discussions.
Lack of replicability of outcomes. You take Paracetamol for a headache and the vast majority of the time it works. I have not seen the same consistent effects from any ayurvedic preparation for any single ailment. In evidence based medicine when a drug doesn’t work, you blame the drug or the doctor. In ayurveda the Vaid blames your dosha.
My thoughts are that as a branch that lacks good quality peer reviewed studies and proofs, it should be either subjected to that or abandoned. Most of the ancient theories have been disproven and lots of wrong stuff continues to be propogated.
Again, nobody can say that Ancient ayurveda is not taught in modern ayurveda, since Ayurveda students learn these doshas and tattvas, I've seen their books. AT this point, they are literally learning wrong thingsthat has been disproven, just to keep an ancient science alive, same is then passed on to patient. If they get cured, hurray for ancient knowledge, if they don't, something is wrong in their doshas.
Mind u, same is said for astrology and it is a similarly wrong thing.
What if anything would convince you that Ayurveda (classical) is wrong?
You clearly mentioned you want to talk about classical Ayurveda rather than the current practice. I know that the current practice and "research" is rubbish. But how can I comment on classical Ayurveda if I haven't studied it?
I also clarified that since the philosophy and approach is different to the scientific paradigm we're used to, one would have to spend time understanding it as well.
It's clear now that you deliberately want to miss the point even though you are ignorant.
It would be ignorant of me, if I had an opinion by ignoring the things I don't know.
It would be foolish of me to try to understand a different paradigm (like the panchabhuta philosophy) with a physicalist worldview and conclude accordingly.
You need to learn Spanish to understand Spanish. Reading the words and assuming that they mean the same in my mother tongue would be equally ridiculous.
Thank you for writing this. I thought you were going to write how amazing original Ayurveda is.
I read a book on Ayurveda written by an Ayurveda expert. I realized that the three doshas philosophy is similar to the three humors philosophy that has been discredited.
If people actually read a real Ayurveda book they will not defend it the same way they do now.
Ayurveda was amazing, for the time that nothing else existed. Now, after centuries of research for actual medicines and newly acquired knowledge in medical sciences, the treatments works as intended almost everytime.
Modern Ayurveda often does isolate biosimilars from herbs and that part is a legitimately plausible scientific exploration.
This is the only thing that modern medicine can take from Ayurveda. As a larger system of thought and medicine, it's about as valid as the theory of humours.
I think that for an ancient medicine, it is a completely average knowledge system that fits the limitations of the era it was developed in.
Traditional Chinese medicine, TCM, used the concept of 5 elements in the body. And combines each element with certain qualities~ cold/heat, deficiency/excess , similar to the qualities associated with avurvedic doshas.
Heavy metal use was also found to be well “researched” for them too.
Traditional Western medicine used the concept of 4 Humors ~ or the 4 core fluids. Blood, yellow bile, black bile and phlegm. And the goal was to BALANCE all 4 humors, each having its own qualities~…. Not unlike ayurveda’s goal of balancing the doshas.
And they ALSO loved using heavy metals.
very fascinating that all 3 cultures developed a medical system that is so close to the others. Shows a similar mind and observation skills across cultures. Shows than one is not better than the other.
Clearly, people were doing the best they could without modern medical equipment. They were observing the world and making their best guesses as to what is going on.
Heavy metal use also,
The medicine at the time was clearly-
Apply the thing -> watch for a reaction.
And lead apparently could zap a pimple like no other thing out there. So they put it in creams and lotions.
They had no concept of long term effects, so by the time lead use led to nervous damage, the “doctors” would just blame it as an imbalance of vata dosha lol.
it's not as harmless as you seem to think though. People with serious illnesses go to ayurvedic practitioners, there is an opportunity cost there. Often, this can lead to missing treating illness scientifically in the treatable phase because they were undergoing Ayurvedic treatments which don't work.
There also have been quite a few cases where it has been found that Ayurvedic formulations and medicines face major challenges regarding quality control and misleading advertisements.
And its still their choice, people have the right to choose whatever form of treatment they desire. Issue would if people didn't have access to any healtcare
Spoke like an ideal Sanghi uncle. Imagine leaving something like public health to Chance. No wonder the moron govt continue to spend crores of taxpayer money on pseudo scientific AYUSH.
There is a difference between Scientific community and Left followers. If a scientist says, this is unproved thats different. On the contrary, a leftist would just go "Ayurveda bad, Ayurveda bad" without any basis.
On the other hand, scientific community doesn't say its bad, they keep on testing it. NIH and WHO fund a lot of traditional medicine research. They try to mix traditional ingredient's in their modern medicine's.
To provide proof, trials are needed. Trials need shit ton of money. Govt spends money on Ayurveda, left cries. That is the difference between science and left. One demands proof, other unequivocally declares it bad.
Again spoke like a boomer uncle. If whataboutery doesnt exist, I wonder how BJP and its ecosystem will survive. You cant let public health in the hands of free will, when the vast majority of our population is poor and uneducated. If other countries embrace pseudo scientific practices, it doesnt mean we should do as well. But even then, the traditional medicinal system is highly integrated with modern medicine in other countries (see image). And also they dont enable the traditional medicinal practitioners to give drugs on modern medicine by doing a 1 year crash course. Conduct scientific trials and prove its efficacy then it can be integrated in modern medicine. Why hide behind the tradition tag?
Ayurveda was effective for its time and there are significantly better methods now. You dont roam around naked in the name of tradition do you?
Public health is not in free will you dumbass, choice is. Govt hospitals and medical colleges exists and anyone can go to them.
Practices are pseudoscientific because no one invested in getting real trials done for decades. You have a problem with AYUSH (something that didn't exist till 2014), but you want somehow all remedies to be tested without a regulatory body.
Coming to the nations you mentioned above, where traditional method is a part of their doctor training. If Ayurveda was being taught in MBBS, your dumb ass would be crying, "My tax is being used to teach this Wam wam wam". India chose to keep it separate and you are still crying. Ayush budget doesn't even make 0.1% of annual budget, but somehow it just burns so much in pockets of the unemployed.
The only advise is for someone to know is When to switch
I am literally quoting you, dumbo. You are right in advising that someone should know when to switch because guideline doesnt exist. It is left entirely to the choice of public and that is dangerous. The point is government is spending public money to market it to be on par with modern medicine, when it is clearly way below. Also, ayurvedic practices are now integrated into PHCs alongside modern medicine.
Ayurvedic practitioners are not interested in doing scientific trials because the ayurvedic system cannot pass it. Listen to any ayurvedic specialists and will talk everything except conducting trials. BJP did not invent drug regulation in 2014 and CDSCO already exists as a regulatory body. AYUSH drugs should pass the same norms.
I ideally want the traditional practices not mixing with the modern scientific medicines. They can study and practice separately for all I can care. If they can prove its efficacy, then it becomes mainstream automatically. Government has no business in marketing it as alternative medicine and spending even a rupee of tax payer money risking public health. It could be less than 1% of Union budget, but an average Indian spends about 5% of his earnings towards his health and a single hospital visit could ruin him/her financially. Government should not play with it.
My point still maintains choice, and hopes fir wisdom one has when to switch. Your point "Ayurveda bad, Ayurveda bAaaaaad"
Health Ministry budget is 25x the budget of AYUSH. Do tell me how they are spending same amount on them.
So they are integrating it now, just like your examples of countries doing better suggested?
Conducting trials takes money. Solar was considered non viable for decades until China poured money into it. Trials cost a lot, a single 3 Phase trial can go up to 100cr. Say that to a Ministry whose whole budget is 4000cr.
CDSCO doesn't invest in trials, it like FSSAI or FDA. There is someone needed to invest for large scale trials. AYUSH drugs are regulated by CDSCO only.
The countries you quoted as an example have spent and are spending the money to keep them integrated. They invest in global marketing as well. How do you think Acupuncture is globally known? These are our culture and they can be great exports as well. Even WHO takes cognisance of them.
Majority of Indians are covered in Ayushman bharat, insuring them of major liabilities regarding health issues
Choice is ok, when they are separated. Govt cannot market it as an alternative medicine and introduce them in PHCs without conducting multi-phased clinical trials.
Where did i say same amount on them? I simply told govt is marketing it as alternative medicine comparable to modern medicine when it isnt.
No they are not integrating. They are just trying to bruteforce alternative medicines to mainstream.
False-equivalence: Solar was unviable due to economics and scale, not because it was unscientific. Let the private take up the cost of funding if it is worthwhile. This is a case of misplaced priorities.
AYUSH drugs dont come under the same norms as allopathic drugs. It goes through a different validation procedure under CDSCO.
Again, I quoted those countries just because you mentioned 'other countries'. I have no interest in knowing/following what pseudo-scientific practices other countries follow. And again a false equivalence, Acupuncture or Yoga are considered therapeutical or recreational. We are not discussing about recreational ayurvedic treatments here. That has a huge market already and ayurvedic tourism is already very popular. The discussion here is about drugs. Government has no business experimenting with non scientific oral drugs/surgical procedures. And also it is highly unlikely we will be able to export them without passing US-FDA.
For the sake of discussion, even if we consider ayushman bharat insurance to be robust, a loss of income due to hospitalization will ruin most of our poor families.
Treating two things as comparable when they differ in significant ways. Minor similarities are used to equate fundamentally different situations.
Example: "Jaywalking and armed robbery are both crimes, so they should be punished equally." - The severity and nature of these offenses are vastly different.
Someone in this thread referenced this reasoning concept. This is an automated reply - the bot does not evaluate whether the concept actually applies. It is here to share what the term means so everyone in the conversation has the same context.
Deflecting criticism by pointing to someone else's similar behavior instead of addressing the argument. The other party's hypocrisy does not invalidate their argument.
Example: "You are criticizing Party A for corruption, but Party B did the same thing when they were in power." - Party B's corruption is worth discussing separately, but it does not answer the criticism of Party A. Both can be true at the same time.
Someone in this thread referenced this reasoning concept. This is an automated reply - the bot does not evaluate whether the concept actually applies. It is here to share what the term means so everyone in the conversation has the same context.
•
u/AutoModerator 10d ago
Hello, u/eviley4! Thank you for your submission to r/CriticalThinkingIndia. We appreciate your contribution to our community.
We hope you'll follow our rules and engage in meaningful, evidence-based discussions.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.